July 2016

We are inventors, entrepreneurs, engineers, investors, researchers, and business leaders working in the technology sector. We are proud that American innovation is the envy of the world, a source of widely-shared prosperity, and a hallmark of our global leadership. We believe in an inclusive country that fosters opportunity, creativity and a level playing field. Donald Trump does not. He campaigns on anger, bigotry, fear of new ideas and new people, and a fundamental belief that America is weak and in decline. We have listened to Donald Trump over the past year and we have concluded: Trump would be a disaster for innovation.

His vision stands against the open exchange of ideas, free movement of people, and productive engagement with the outside world that is critical to our economy — and that provide the foundation for innovation and growth. We also believe in the free and open exchange of ideas, including over the Internet, as a seed from which innovation springs. Donald Trump proposes “shutting down” parts of the Internet as a security strategy — demonstrating both poor judgment and ignorance about how technology works. His penchant to censor extends to revoking press credentials and threatening to punish media platforms that criticize him. We stand against Donald Trump’s divisive candidacy and want a candidate who embraces the ideals that built America’s technology industry: freedom of expression, openness to newcomers, equality of opportunity , public investments in research and infrastructure, and respect for the rule of law. We embrace an optimistic vision for a more inclusive country, where American innovation continues to fuel opportunity, prosperity and leadership.

When it comes to Europe’s lengthy investigations into Google, Margrethe Vestager, the region’s competition chief, is hoping that the third time’s a charm. Vestager announced a new round of antitrust charges against the company — the third set since early 2015 — claiming that some of the company’s advertising products had restricted consumer choice. The efforts are part of her continuing push to rein in Google’s activities in the European Union, where the Silicon Valley company has captured roughly 90 percent of the region’s online search market.

“Google’s conduct, based on our evidence, is harmful to consumers,” she said. “Google’s magnificent innovations don’t give it the right to deny competitors the chance to innovate.” The announcement represents a setback for Google, which vigorously denied any wrongdoing in two previous European antitrust charges linked to Android, its popular mobile operating system, and some of its dominant online search services. It also comes at a difficult time for Europe’s competition authorities, which have been unable to land a knockout punch against Google’s perceived abusive activities in the region, despite investigations that date back to 2010. The stakes are high. Google could face fines of up to 10 percent, or about $7 billion, of its global annual revenue if it is found to have broken Europe’s tough competition rules.

Today I announce that we will not proceed at this time to adopt additional rules governing good faith negotiations for retransmission consent. Now let me be clear; this does not mean the Federal Communications Commission will turn a blind eye to disputes. Nor does it mean that Congress couldn’t expand the scope of the Commission’s authority in this space. What this decision does mean is that “totality of circumstances” is pretty broad and ought not to be constrained. There is nothing in the record that suggests that our current totality of the circumstances test, which is intentionally broad, is inadequate to address the negotiating practices of broadcast stations or multichannel video programming distributors (MVPDs) in the marketplace today.

What we need is not more rules, but for both sides in retransmission consent negotiations to take seriously their responsibility to consumers, who expect to watch their preferred broadcast programming without interruption and to receive the subscription TV service for which they pay. The Commission can investigate a potential good faith violation on its own and take enforcement action when a party fails to fulfill its statutory obligations.

The House Commerce Committee has defeated two amendments from Democratic Reps to a reform bill that would have given the Federal Trade Commission authority to regulate broadband Internet service provider consumer privacy and more authority to regulate edge provider privacy. That came in a full committee mark-up July 14 on the FTC Process and Transparency Reform Act of 2016 (HR 5510), that would clarify what conduct the Federal Trade Commission can cite for unfairness under its authority to go after unfair and deceptive practices and how it determines that to be the case. The Judiciary Committee is also considering the FTC reform bill.

One amendment would have given the FTC authority to create rules that protect consumer privacy on websites. The Democratic Reps on the committee said that if the Republican Reps want a level playing field in broadband privacy, rather than prevent the Federal Communications Commission from adopting new rules on broadband privacy, a better answer is give the FTC more FCC-like rulemaking authority. Republican Reps countered that was a slippery slope, that the FTC was an enforcement agency, not a rulemaking agency. That amendment was defeated by a vote of 27 to 17. A second amendment would have eliminated the common carrier exemption that required the FCC to take over broadband privacy oversight when it reclassified ISPs as common carriers. Democratic Reps argued that would be an elegant solution to boosting the FTC's ability to regulate privacy. Republican Reps said that the FCC would not give up its abusive, mission creep authority just because the FTC also got oversight. That amendment was defeated by a voice vote.